16 September 2021 – by Ole Ter Wey
“Environmental problems threaten people’s health, livelihoods and lives, and can cause wars.”[1]
“This place once used to be my home!” I remember well Akineti’s (pronounced ‘Akines’) facial expression when she told me this whilst pointing beyond the coastal line. I recognized a combination of desperation, disbelief, and anger. Of course, I cannot exclude the possibility that my own feelings prejudiced my perception. Akineti and some 2,000 other I-Kiribati (people of the South Pacific island nation Kiribati, pronounced ‘Kiribas’) live on the small atoll of Tabiteuea North, and therefore, at the forefront of climate change threats. Akineti continued:
“When I lost my home to the sea, my two sons and I fled to Tarawa [capital of Kiribati] to find a job and better protection from the threats of climate change, such as the lack of fresh water supply. However, I then returned only one year later as the situation in Tarawa was even worse than in Tabiteuea. We barely found a place to stay as Tarawa is very densely crowded, I could not grow my own food because of salination, and in the dry season there was almost no clean, fresh water supply.”[2]
In order to place this very personal story within a wider context, the following paragraph shall introduce the reader to the island nation of Kiribati and the impact and challenges climate change has on its people. The aim of this essay is to explore how people like Akineti and the citizens in Kiribati can live a peaceful life despite the threats already mentioned and further elaborated upon below.
Overview of the Situation
The Republic of Kiribati lies about halfway between Australia and Hawaii in the South Pacific and consists of 33 atolls. Together, these atolls make up a mere 800 square kilometres of land. If the sea areas are included in the calculation, Kiribati is one of the largest countries in the world – about the size of India.[3] Until 1979, Kiribati was a British colony. Probably not entirely by chance, the young island state was given its independence in the same year that the last phosphorus deposits were mined, thus exhausting the country’s largest source of income to date.[4] Not least because of this historical incident, Kiribati has been dubbed one of the world’s so-called LDCs (‘least developed countries’). In addition, the Kiribati atolls have a special feature that makes them particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change: the highest elevation of each island rises only three to four meters above sea-level.[5] According to calculations commissioned by the World Bank, about two thirds of the atolls will have sunk into the sea by the end of this century. The same study has found that in less than forty years, life on the islands will no longer be possible due to the salination of the groundwater.[6]
Today, climate change already causes some severe problems for I-Kiribati. According to the United Nations (UN), ‘[c]ommon effects of climate change felt and experienced are coastal inundation, loss of houses along [the] coast leading to relocation of villages to safer inner areas of islands, [and] aggravated soil infertility with sea water intrusion’.[7] This direct ecological impact of climate change ultimately leads to the deterioration of local socioeconomic conditions as it exacerbates the existing development pressures of rapid urbanisation, pollution, and poor sanitation which in turn compromise the availability of freshwater resources and the land that sustain the communities that depend on them.[8]
Though the intensity of these effects will only increase in the future, there is no violent or even open conflict, neither within the Kiribati population nor between Kiribati and any other state. In the Inventory of Conflict and Environment database, the Level of Conflict as well as the Fatality Level of Dispute (encompassing military and civilian fatalities) were predicted as ‘low’[9] and this prediction was confirmed in the last decade. This begs the question of whether conflict resolution really is the right approach to address the above-stated problems. Unfortunately, this superficial understanding of the concept of conflict resolution is applied far too often. As Prof. Emeritus Amr Abdalla[10] and the former UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser Edward C. Luck[11] and others have emphasised, conflict prevention is at least as important as conflict management, conflict resolution, and conflict transformation. Rather, these three concepts only increase in importance when conflict could not be prevented in time. In order to prevent conflict, it is necessary to recognize conflict potentials at an early stage and to respond proactively.
In the present instance, some latent conflict potentials are obvious. The more citizens flee from the particularly threatened outer islands (such as Tabiteuea) to the main island, the more the overpopulation of Tarawa increases. This results in a variety of potential conflicts, ranging from disputes over land and the struggle for jobs, to increasingly poor sanitation – this list is not exhaustive. Cases in which, despite sufficient information, no timely action was taken can be used here as deterrent examples. Perhaps the cruellest result of a missed opportunity for conflict prevention was the Rwandan genocide in 1994.[12] More than half a year before the genocide began, in August 1993, a report by the UN human rights investigator for Rwanda warned of an escalation of violence between the population groups. But despite these and other early warnings, the UN did not intervene until many hundreds of thousands of lives had already been lost. Even if the dimensions in Kiribati are of a much smaller scale, it is nevertheless evident that immediate action must be taken to prevent the initial tense situation from turning into outright violent conflict. That said, before launching into a discussion of concrete measures, the peace that shall be achieved for the people of Kiribati must first be transformed into tangible objectives.
How could peace be achieved more generally?
Specific needs
To achieve stable and long-lasting peace, the basic human needs of all parties must first be met. These are non-negotiable.[13] Since in this case of conflict prevention we initially consider only one (albeit heterogeneous) party, the most urgent needs can be identified quite clearly. The Kiribati population fundamentally requires respect for their rights to life, security, and dignity, as set forth in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[14] It is important to break down these abstract demands more precisely into specific interests
As such, the present main interests of I-Kiribati’ are food security, sufficient access to clean drinking water, and enough space within which to live. Due to the rural exodus caused by climate change, more than 50% of the Kiribati population currently live on the 15 square kilometre main island of South Tarawa. This means that the island has one of the world’s highest population densities of more than 3500 people per square kilometre. This restricts living and farming space, and it also limits job opportunities or access to education given the lack of resources to accommodate the population. The citizens of Kiribati are forced to resort to expensive imported food, with little chance of earning an income. In addition, the sanitation facilities and infrastructure are not designed for such masses of people. This in turn leads to an increase in the contamination of the groundwater and more frequent outbreaks of disease. There are of course many other problems which could be further elaborated upon, but which are beyond the scope of this study. It does not take much imagination to realize that if the above-mentioned threats and pressures continue to increase, an escalation of the enormous conflict potential into violent conflicts could occur over scarce resources. But what must be done now to prevent such an eruption of conflict?
The approach to conflict resolution in general and conflict prevention specifically must be to tackle the causes of conflict at its roots and not merely its symptoms.[15] In this case, these roots are very quickly dug out. All the problems described are attributable to rising sea levels and therefore to climate change.
Approaches to combating climate change
Approaches to combating climate change stem from many different disciplines. Firstly, the field of peace education should be highlighted as possibly one of the most important. In order to achieve change, it is essential to educate people to think critically. This is particularly true in relation to climate change not only for affected populations but especially for external people whose thoughtless participation in the current social order contributes to the progression of climate change. Otherwise, in the style of banking education, only the status quo is maintained. Peace education, with its realistic and critical approach, is therefore predestined to address structural problems, since it ‘strives for the emergence of consciousness and critical intervention in reality’[16].
Secondly, sustainable agriculture can also play a major part in combating climate change by replacing the use of pesticides with more diversity in the crop fields. The loss of more and more diversity in different crop varieties in general and of genetic diversity within a particular crop type due to ubiquitous monoculture poses a threat in the face of climate change. The world population depends on a diminishing variety of crops. And if this one genetic variant of wheat, for example, were to grow worse due to climate change, large parts of the population, especially in developing and least developed countries, would suffer from hunger. Greater diversity in crop fields is therefore an important adaptation to climate change. Moreover, the production of food represents a significant part in the emission of greenhouse gases. It is primarily the production of livestock products that contributes to climate change. Thus, driving the shift from industrial agriculture to agroecology and promoting a more effective, plant-based food supply.[17]
Finally, climate agreements such as the 2015 Paris Agreement or the 2009 Copenhagen Accord also play an important role. These represent globally negotiated climate targets such as limiting global warming to a maximum of 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius. However, the legal status of such agreements is problematic.[18] The Copenhagen Accord is not legally binding, and the Paris Agreement also has its weaknesses. For instance, big players such as the United States (US) and Brazil can withdraw from the agreement, which would represent an immense drawback in the fight against climate change as these states are among the biggest polluters in the world.
What could peace look like in this situation?
Would it be advantageous, then, to support these existing attempts to address climate change in the hopes of maintaining conflict prevention in Kiribati? As plausible as this consideration may seem, it can and must be rejected. For Kiribati, the insight of the international community comes simply too late. The climate reacts slowly to human efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. According to various sources,[19] the climate is only reacting to today’s greenhouse gas emissions with a delay of about 50 years. In other words, even a global end to greenhouse gas emissions starting tomorrow cannot change the fate of Kiribati. I would like to emphasise once again that the fight against climate change is not pointless, but rather that it comes too late for Kiribati. Nevertheless, we may still contemplate which of these peace-bringing approaches would be most promising for conflict prevention in Kiribati.
Taking a slightly futuristic approach would lead us to discuss the lifting of the atolls and strengthening the walls of the freshwater lens. Indeed, there are already some artificial islands in the world whose construction has been adapted. One of the most famous is probably the palm-shaped Palm Jumeriah in Dubai. While this island was created completely from scratch, in Kiribati there would only have to be an elevation of the existing island. This could involve shovelling sediment from the lagoon to gradually raise the island further out of the water. What sounds simple at first, however, means tremendous structural problems for an inhabited island as well as the need for an enormous amount of financial resources. Nevertheless, China is an even more a potent advocate for this solution.[20]
An alternative approach lies in planned migration, or ‘migration with dignity’[21]. This plan was long promoted by former Kiribati President Anote Tong before current President Taneti Maamau’s technocratic approach of lifting the islands became the focus of national interest.
What are the challenges to peace?
Mangroves
Kiribati is already taking adaptation measures to keep the consequences of climate change within tolerable limits. For example, the population is building so-called sea walls to provide some protection during high tide. In addition to other personal protection measures taken by the citizens, the state itself is also promoting projects to prevent land erosion, for example. To this end, large areas of mangroves are being planted in coastal areas, and the resulting strong root network at least slows down the erosion of the coast.[22] However, as an investigative committee of the Kiribati government has also confirmed, these isolated measures will only be able to provide relief for a very limited period.[23]
Floating islands
Commissions of experts are proposing stronger measures for habitat conservation. Researchers from University College London’s Mechanical Engineering Department, for example, are proposing ‘to construct major sea defences, dredge the seabed to reclaim earth or ship earth to Tarawa Atoll, [or to] construct a platform over the island or raise all buildings on stilts’[24]. They even present a floating island as a promising measure. It would consist of 102 triangular aircushion-supported modules, six of which would form a separate district that would be as autonomous as possible whilst still connected to all other communities. The researchers also suggest that ‘[l]ocal photovoltaic and hot water solar panels [are supposed to] provide energy, and rooftop collection and large storage reservoirs [to] provide fresh water’[25]. They promise the citizens of Kiribati ‘that traditional values and lifestyles can be respected and preserved’[26] and at the same time that their quality of life can be drastically improved. These promises of a better life through technical achievements can be cited as a prime example of a techno-centred understanding of sustainability. This is characterized by the conviction that damage caused by climate change can be absorbed by technology, and thus fights the symptoms instead of the origin of the problems. This understanding of sustainability is said to be particularly close to economy as it would not require major cuts in carbon emissions but allows for further economic growth without changes in the means of production.[27] Indeed, this rather economy-centered approach is also reflected in the report of the researchers of the London College, which promises Kiribati the possibility of economic growth based on sustainable design as a result of the adaptation.[28]
Unsurprisingly, however, the vision of the floating island does not begin with economic growth, but with an immense investment. The estimated cost of implementing such a huge project is £874 million per community. If 17 communities and five strategic areas complete the artificial island, the total cost will amount to £19.2 billion [~$25 billion].[29] For an LDC state with a GDP of $188.3 million this is an absurdly high sum. For other states with a significantly higher economic output, this would not be completely unthinkable. So, when a country with a large margin of manoeuvre such as China offers its help, Kiribati will certainly be listening.
Kiribati is now planning to raise its existing islands by one to two meters with China’s help.[30] As President Maamau has stated, ‘[t]here are already plans to build up part of [the capital atoll] Tarawa through dredging fill materials from the lagoon’[31]. He adds that the main island is to be raised, and that the ‘20-year vision has also included strategies to secure dredgers that will assist with these efforts as well as dredging channels in the outer islands’[32]. Thus, the measures could potentially lead to a relaxation of the situation, as fewer people would move from the outer islands to the main island, minimizing the negative effects of overpopulation as described above.
China’s role
The increasingly strong role of China in Kiribati, which is relatively close to Hawaii, is viewed with suspicion by Western forces. In fear of a Chinese military base in Kiribati, the US and its allies in the Pacific, Australia, and New Zealand are trying to frame relations between Kiribati and China in an unfavourable light on the international stage. In August 2019, for example, when the Chinese ambassador was ceremonially received on an outer island, he was given a path of young men lying on the ground in accordance with the local culture. This is one of the highest honours in Kiribati, and if the ambassador had rejected it and not walked over the men’s backs, it would have been considered insulting. Some Australian media, however, used the resulting photograph to portray China as ‘an imperialist state intent on colonizing the world’[33]. This deliberate misinterpretation of the image is a typical way of discrediting the opponent in conflict situations.[34] Though China is clearly aiming to strengthen its influence in the region, considering the fact that if Kiribati does not take effective measures within the next 30 to 40 years, the country will no longer be habitable, it is understandable that China’s offer to help would be accepted.
Migration with dignity
An elevation of the island could just be presented as a first option for the prevention of conflicts, which in Kiribati are increasingly arising from the consequences of climate change. In very simple terms, the shrinking of the island due to rising sea levels was identified as an underlying cause of potential conflict. Since mitigation measures of climate change are too late for Kiribati due to the delayed response of the climate, an approach to conflict prevention in the elevation of the island was thus discussed. However, some weaknesses of this idea, such as its feasibility, were also revealed and questioned. Another approach can be outlined in equally very simplified terms as follows: The original cause of conflict (climate change) for Kiribati cannot be reversed in time. And as with the island elevation approach just discussed, this scenario as well identifies Kiribati’s geographic features as another cause of potential conflict. To address these location issues, an even more radical measure could also be thought through as an alternative to elevating the island: Kiribati’s population is suffering from the effects of climate change combined with the island’s geography. Since climate change cannot be stopped in time, why don’t people move to another location? In this regard, former Kiribati President Anote Tong coined the term ‘migration with dignity’ during his period in office.[35] The idea behind it is to be prepared in the event of the foreseeable end of the island nation. A few years ago, Kiribati has therefore even bought land on an island of Fiji. However, there is little to no infrastructure there, so it would not be feasible to simply move its inhabitants there. Moreover, the country is at least partially inhabited by an indigenous tribe of Fiji, which is why another conflict party could potentially be added in this scenario. But is the purchase of land the only route to regulated and dignified migration?
So far, the answer to this question is probably yes. In 2015, Ioane Teitiota, a citizen of Kiribati, claimed asylum in New Zealand as the world’s first climate refugee. But the New Zealand court rejected the claim and Teitiota’s appeal to the OHCHR was not granted either.[36] The fact that climate refugees have not yet been legally recognized seems at first glance to be rooted in bureaucracy. The 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees does not cover such migrants, since it was originally drafted to protect those fleeing persecution, war, or violence.[37] However, on closer inspection, it seems that the UN is reluctant to put refugees from war and climate refugees on the same level, as it fears compromise in the support of war refugees. For ‘if the UNHCR broadens its definition of “refugee” to support an entirely new category, it is unclear if the political appetite exists to provide the necessary funding’[38] or whether the support of all refugees would be stopped. Contrary to these concerns, there are loud voices calling for exactly such a legal recognition of climate refugees as well. They claim that ‘in order to qualify as a refugee, you need to be fleeing persecution, or to fear persecution. Forgoing the term ‘climate refugee’ is also, in a way, forgoing the idea that climate change is a form of persecution against the most vulnerable and that climate-induced migration is a very political matter, rather than an environmental one.’[39]
However, until such a legal status is established, Kiribati is trying to take alternative paths and has concluded binational agreements with Australia, for example. The deal provides for young people in Kiribati to be specially trained for jobs in demand in Australia and then allowed to work in Australia, thus facilitating access to an official residence permit[40]. In this way, as many people as possible are to succeed in migrating with dignity. However, serious disadvantages of this approach are the so-called brain drain, as many young, well-trained workers leave the country, and the loss of Kiribati culture. While it can be concluded at this point that a violent conflict over resources in Kiribati would be successfully prevented in this scenario, the question of whether the many difficulties of migration do not also provoke some potential for conflict remains.
Conclusion
In conclusion, an evaluation of the two presented scenarios shall be made. The first part of the paper explained why conventional measures for environmental protection come too late for the Kiribati population. Subsequently, two adaptation measures were presented, which are exactly adjusted to the special situation of the island nation. First, the possibility of an artificial elevation of the island was discussed. The technocratic approach has many advantages: The Kiribati population can remain in their accustomed (though certainly changed) environment and, above all, remain together as a community. This would also ensure the preservation of the rich Kiribati culture and language. In Kiribati I felt the strong desire of the people to be allowed to stay in their country and especially not to give up the independence they gained only 40 years ago. Moreover, if the outer islands were to be raised along with the main island of Tarawa, the overpopulation in Tarawa could decrease, thus alleviating a great potential for conflict. However, it should not go unmentioned that Kiribati would be moving between the fronts of a growing international conflict between China and the Western powers. Furthermore, the issue of climate change and rising sea levels would remain a constant topic of discussion, as the adaptation measures would have to be repeated at regular intervals.
The latter point is a major advantage of the migration with dignity approach. Once the migration to a less vulnerable place has been successfully completed, the issue of climate change loses its everyday threat to I-Kiribati. However, another weak point in this scenario cannot go unmentioned: Who says that integration into the new environment will succeed? The many potential conflicts that can arise from a failed integration can be seen in almost every region of the world, even if an analysis of this problem is not possible in the context of this paper. Additionally, the Kiribati culture and language is in danger of being lost in the event of scattered migration to different places in Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, etc. In fact, the state of Kiribati would probably disappear with such a step. One possible solution could be a joint migration to the acquired piece of land in Fiji. However, this land does not yet have any infrastructure, and the presence of the indigenous population brings other major potential for conflict. All in all, the migration with dignity approach would buy the desired physical security albeit with many other problems.
However, to ensure that Kiribati does not become one example among many in the near future, the decisive action of the international community is more important than ever before. For, as this article has repeatedly alluded to, the real underlying problem is the progression of climate change. While for Kiribati all mitigation measures are probably too late, for many other vulnerable regions of the world our actions today can still provide a future without dire conflict scenarios arising from the consequences of climate change. Determined climate action thus makes an enormously important contribution to global conflict prevention. In the words of Hopwood, ‘environmental problems are not local but global, so that actions and impacts must be considered internationally to avoid displacing problems from one area to another by actions such as releasing pollution that crosses boundaries, moving polluting industries to another location or using up more than an equitable share of the earth’s resources’[41].
Ole ter Wey, a Correspondent at Earth Refuge, is currently studying International Law and Human Rights at the UN-mandated University for Peace in San José, Costa Rica. He previously lived with a local community in Kiribati for over a year. There, he experienced first hand the consequences of climate change endangering the existence of an entire state
References
[1] Hopwood, B. (2005). Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches, p. 39. Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, pp. 38-52. DOI: 10.1002/sd.244
[2]Memorial protocol from my visit in 2015.
[3] Tereroko, T., et al. (2007). Republic of Kiribati – National Adaption Program of Action (NAPA). Environment and Conservation Division, Ministry of Environment, Land, and Agricultural Development – Government of Kiribati. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/kir01.pdf
[4] van Trease, H. (1993). From Colony to Independence. In: H. van Trease, Atoll Politics – The Republic of Kiribati (pp. 3-22). MacMillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies.
[5] Tereroko, T., et al. (2007). Republic of Kiribati – National Adaption Program of Action (NAPA). Environment and Conservation Division, Ministry of Environment, Land, and Agricultural Development – Government of Kiribati. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/kir01.pdf
[6] World Bank (2020). Climate Change Knowledge Portal – Country Kiribati. World Bank Group. https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/kiribati
[7] United Nations (2019), General Assembly: National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21: Kiribati, A/HRC/WG.6/35/KIR/1 (11 November 2019), p. 19. Available from undocs.org/en/A/HRC/WG.6/35/KIR/1.
[8] Storey, D.; et al. (2010). Kiribati: an environmental “perfect storm”. Australian Geographer, Vol. 41(2), pp. 167-181. In: J. Campbell, et al. (2014). Climate Change and Migration Issues in the Pacific. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
[9] Ketchoyian, K. (2011). Kiribati and Sea Level Rise. ICE Case Studies. http://mandalaprojects.com/ice/ice-cases/kiribati.htm
[10] Abdalla, A. (2020). C.R. SIPPABIO – A Model for Conflict Analysis. University for Peace.
[11] Luck, E. C. (2002). Prevention: Theory and Practice. In: F. O. Hampson (Eds.), Prevention – Opportunities for the UN system (pp. 251-274). Lynne Rienner Publishers.
[12] Tanner, F. (2000). Conflict prevention and conflict resolution: limits of multilateralism. International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 82(839), pp. 541-559.
[13] Abdalla, A. (2020). C.R. SIPPABIO – A Model for Conflict Analysis. University for Peace.
[14] United Nations (n.d.). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
[15] Abdalla, A. (2020). C.R. SIPPABIO – A Model for Conflict Analysis. University for Peace.
[16] Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th Anniversary Edition), p. 81. The Continuum
International Publishing Group.
[17]Sylvester, O. (2019). Food security and sustainable agriculture in the 21st century: Key concepts and debates. University for Peace.
[18]D’Aspremont, J. (2015). The Collective Security System and the Enforcement of International Law. In: M. Weller (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (pp. 129-156). Oxford University Press.
[19]e.g., Samset, B. H.; et al. (2020). Delayed emergence of a global temperature response after emission mitigation. Nature Communications, Vol. 11(3261), pp. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17001-1
[20] e.g., Pala, Christopher (2020): Kiribati’s president’s plans to raise islands in fight against sea level-rise. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/10/kiribatis-presidents-plans-to-raise-islands-in-fight-against-sea-level-rise, last retrieved: 18.08.2021; CBC Radio (2020): The tiny Pacific nation of Kiribati wants to raise its islands to save it from the rising sea. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.5683498/the-tiny-pacific-nation-of-kiribati-wants-to-raise-its-islands-to-save-it-from-the-rising-sea-1.5682046, last retrieved: 18.08.2021
[21]Gormley, S. (2016). Migration with dignity: Their island nation may someday sink into the ocean, so what are Kiribati’s people to do?. Ottawa Citizen. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/world/migration-with-dignity-their-island-nation-may-someday-sink-into-the-ocean-so-what-are-kiribatis-people-to-do
[22] United Nations (2019), General Assembly: National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21: Kiribati, A/HRC/WG.6/35/KIR/1 (11 November 2019), p. 19. Available from undocs.org/en/A/HRC/WG.6/35/KIR/1.
[23]Tereroko, T., et al. (2007). Republic of Kiribati – National Adaption Program of Action (NAPA). Environment and Conservation Division, Ministry of Environment, Land, and Agricultural Development – Government of Kiribati. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/kir01.pdf
[24]Lister, N.; et al. (2015). Sustainable Artificial Island Concept Design for the Nation of Kiribati, p. 85. Ocean Engineering, Vol. 98, pp. 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.01.013
[25] ibid.
[26] ibid.
[27]Hopwood, B. (2005). Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches. Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, pp. 38-52. DOI: 10.1002/sd.244
[28]Lister, N.; et al. (2015). Sustainable Artificial Island Concept Design for the Nation of Kiribati. Ocean Engineering, Vol. 98, pp. 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.01.013
[29] ibid., p. 84
[30]Pala, C. (2020). Kiribati’s president’s plans to raise islands in fight against sea-level rise. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/10/kiribatis-presidents-plans-to- raise-islands-in-fight-against-sea-level-rise
[31] ibid.
[32] ibid.
[33]Yuwei, H. (2020). Misinterpretation of photo of Chinese ambassador to Kiribati refuted. Global Times. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1198295.shtml
[34]Manor, I.; et al. (2018). Visually framing the Gaza War of 2014: The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Twitter. Media, War & Conflict, Vol. 11(4), pp. 369-391.
[35]Gormley, S. (2016). Migration with dignity: Their island nation may someday sink into the ocean, so what are Kiribati’s people to do?. Ottawa Citizen. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/world/migration-with-dignity-their-island-nation-may- someday-sink-into-the-ocean-so-what-are-kiribatis-people-to-do
[36]OHCHR (2020). Historic UN Human Rights case opens door to climate change asylum claims. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25482&LangID=E
[37]W. H. (2018). Why climate migrants do not have refugee status. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/06/why-climate-migrants-do-not-have-refugee-status
[38] ibid.
[39]Gemenne, F. (2015). One good reason to speak of ‘climate refugees’, p.71. Forced Migration Review, Vol. 49, pp. 70-71.
[40] Tereroko, T., et al. (2007). Republic of Kiribati – National Adaption Program of Action (NAPA). Environment and Conservation Division, Ministry of Environment, Land, and Agricultural Development – Government of Kiribati. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/kir01.pdf
[41]Hopwood, B. (2005). Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches, p. 39. Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, pp. 38-52. DOI: 10.1002/sd.244
